Thank you. I’m flattered.
I thought it was topical. 
The first step in the budget process is the President submits a budget to Congress.
Jeeiz, man, don’t sweat the details. Just make up a claim and rant about it, like the new Republican whine boilerplate:
“The Democrats promised to be bipartisan! And they’re not!”
“The Democrats promised to pull our troops out of Iraq! And they haven’t!”
Fuck you, duffer, simply for being so irredeemably stupid. I mean, I know that it isn’t really fair to curse you for something that you likely have no control over, but, man you just make it so tough not to.
I know that it won’t make a difference, since you were born with tin foil dura matter, but I’ll say it again: The only people who have pledged bipartisanship in any fashion are the post-election Republicans. The Democrats and the American people sent the Republicans to the corner so that the rest of us could get this shit straightened out.
The Republicans have basically pledged to stop kicking others in the balls and punching them in the kidneys and in the back of the head. This is nice, but irrelevant since they have been handcuffed and shackled.
It’s a bit like Hannibal Lecter promising that he won’t eat you as long as you have him in a straight-jacket with a leather mask and mouthguard on and are rolling him around on a dolly. That’s great, but once you let him out again, you’re fucked.
Sure looks that way. :rolleyes:
May I remind Mr. Duffer that the Republicans have provided input on the 100 hour proposals already. Certainly not increasing the minimum wage for over 10 years, and attaching a cynical tax cut to the bill last year is input. The K Street Project and the basic trivialization of the House Ethics committee was input about how they felt about ethics. (Though I admit that their pressuring the lobbyists to spurn Democrats have made it much easier for the Dems to pass bills to screw the lobbyists. Don’t say we’re not grateful for some things.) Now stem cells passed last year, but perhaps the message of the people will allow a veto override this year.
So we’ve had the input on the first 100 days already. When we get to new stuff, then they can talk.
Since you put the words “bridge-building” and “reconciliation” in quotes, may I assume that you are actually quoting the words of a prominent Democratic leader in Congress? I didn’t think so.
Personally, I love how the new Democratically-controlled Congress hasn’t even been running for one week and already the righties are mewing over every last little thing. Boo fuckin’ hoo; where was this grave concern for bipartisanship and balance when the GOP was steamrolling over the country for the last ten years or so?
It’s like the first time I saw Airplane, or Dan Hicks, or Richard Pryor. That’s how funny it is! Ah, sweet, sweet karma! Todays pig is tomorrows bacon!
duffer, let me get this straight. Things worked out well after the flood in Grand Forks, but you still want blame Clinton and Gore? You say that it is a small town, and yet you are comparing it to a disaster area the size of England?
I will not reargue that with you. Congress will have hearings.
And that’s the point. There will be hearings and Congress will be fulfilling one of its duties once again. It won’t just be about baseball either.
I didn’t get out and stand in line to vote so that the Democrats and the Republicans can be chums again. I want to know why my government can listen to my phone calls, read my emails, look at my bank transactions and now, thanks to another signing statement, open first class mail addressed to me – without a warrant!
I want reconsideration of the approval of what amounts to torture.
I want a closer look at people who are being held without charges and trials at Guantanamo.
Who is responsible for the incredible blundering into Iraq? Why so many lies and so much denial about what was said once it was said?
It is up to the Republicans to see that these questions are explored in a bi-partisan manner. They can either join the Democrats in looking for answers or they can sit and watch. In 1974 the Republicans were full participants in the Watergate Hearings. I remember especially Republican Senator Howard Baker, assisted by counsel and future Republican Senator Fred Thompson.
Two of the best things in the last six years haven’t come from the Democrats; they have been truly bi-partisan. The committee that investigated the terrorists’ attacks on September 11th and the Jim Baker committee that investigated what changes should occur in Iraq.
Don’t tell me that there are not people on that hill capable of acting for the good of the people. I will not believe you.
As for some of your quotations and comments, duffer:
Please notice that this statement was made by a professor in California and not a Democrat in Washington. He teaches political science at a college. What he has stated is not a matter of fact, it is political theory. He’s not describing something that has taken place in the last week.
1987-2007: Reagin? Bush the Elder? the current president? Who am I leaving out? Ooooooh! Clinton! There was a Democrat!
I don’t stand for corruption wherever I see it. And I have crossed party lines to vote. But I don’t want to sacrifice getting at the truth in order just to play nice. Do you know what I mean? I think we can be a better country than we’ve been for the last six years. I would like to see us return to some of our more principled ways.
My goodness my horse is getting high…
Kind of how we all witnessed the snowball that formed months before Bush ever took office? I see your hands, and they are clean sir.
Recall that over recent months and years, many Republicans were using scare tactics to prevent Democrats from making strong left-ward stands on issues by implying that the public would not support the radical left, and Democrats should run on very moderate, or essentially Republican-lite positions. Could it be that duffer actually believed such right-wing bullshit, and has translated it into some kind of idea that Democrats must have run on promises of bipartisanship? Does he really believe that voters voted for candidates so that they could work with Republicans?
I think we are looking at the results of living with your head up your political ass. I think part of him must really be stunned to be frantically searching for evidence that what Hannity and O’Reilly and Limbaugh were telling him was true, and failing to find any.
duffer, there would not have been such a sea change, overturning both houses, with Republicans taking not one new seat, if anyone was interested or was promising bipartisanship. The Republicans were/are yet both exceptionally corrupt and exceedingly wrong on just about every issue. Nobody wanted anyone to work with them. They just wanted them to go away.
So Duffer - when is President Gump going to go all bi-partisan over Iraq and get the fuck out like the bi-partisan Special Study Group suggested and the electorate clearly voted for? Or does it only work one way?
Can we assume Gump’s sincere desire for all getting along will stop his practice of redefining legislation with signings?
duffer, why do you keep posting to this thread without actually providing the cites you have been repeatedly asked for? Wouldn’t it be better to just let your thread die than to keep having it pop up and remind everybody that your premise was wrong from the start with each cite-less post? Do you think nobody has noticed that you failed to support your premise in even the slightest way?
For what it’s worth;
Google search for “democrats working for unity” = 2 results 
Google search for “republicans working for unity” = 0 results :eek:
I think duffer might be confusing what he thinks he heard from politicians in the run-up to the elections with what people who voted for the dems actually said about the incumbants, that they were sick of one sided, non-unity driven politics. And probably a lot of that noise came from these boards. I heard that stuff too, not sure from where, but it was ‘out there’.
And we’ll hear it again.
Hentor, could you please name some “strong left-ward stands” that any democrats ran on that catapulted them to a win? Or for that matter list the far left-wing candidates that won during the last election. I ask sincerely, because I doubt your assumption here;
It sounds like you believe the country wanted to vote for extreme left ideology but was persuaded not to.
Whereas I believe that any such stance is suicidal for most politicians. Regardless of what the right says.
I’m not sure you’ve taken my point - or you are trying to extend it beyond my intention here. My point was this: Frequently, here and elsewhere, if any Democratic position was articulated that wasn’t “centrist” (and in reality wasn’t just a watered down Republican position), it would be met with lots of “concern” for the well-being of the Democrats. “Well, you could hope the Democrats run on [position X], but they will obviously alienate the voters, who just love them some Republican ideas so much that they won’t tolerate anything else.”
Clearly that is bullshit, and if it were actually carried through, you’d end up with Republicans and lesser Republican candidates, and voters would clearly just vote for actual Republicans. I was imagining above that if some dupe internalized this bullshit, they might actually believe that Democrats ran on bipartisanship, unity and centrism.
I’m quite sure I can find many exaples of this faux-concern for the palatability of Democratic positions from this board, if you remain interested in exploring the point I was making.
For the remainder of what I actually said, I also feel comfortable that I can find evidence that voters voted based on Republican party corruption and failure, if you’d like to explore that avenue instead.
Thanks for the clarification, no need to dig further.
Mild nitpick: the Senate Watergate hearings were in 1973. “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” But even better than Baker was another Republican, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut.
By 1974, the action had moved to the House Judiciary Committee, where things were also happening in a bipartisan fashion: there were 21 Dems on the committee, but the first two impeachment resolutions passed by 27-11 and 28-10 margins.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – it speaks volumes to how the modern-day GOP has dragged the nation to the extreme right that Barry Goldwater would be seen as a liberal nowadays.